In modern times, ODI cricket has evolved rapidly in the favour of batsman with flat pitches, decline in bowling stocks and conditions tailor made for run scoring.

With the Powerplays and fielding restrictions in the early overs. Batsman are going helter-skelter in the early overs knowing that mi****s will more than likely land safely in the outfield. Which brings me to my point, are talented batsman with supreme hand-eye co-ordination and timing more important than batsman with solid footwork and good classical techniques ??

I'm purely referring to ODI cricket and I'm kinda confused as regularly (over the last couple of years) we're seeing flat track bullies average higher and score at far higher S/R when conventional wisdom suggests that the more technique-oriented batsman would have the wherewithal to handle most conditions and average higher scores even it they score at a lower S/R. It's kind of worrying that batsman get away with almost anything these days and it just feeds into the argument that you need to be a dasher to play ODI cricket.

To put it succinctly, if you are a manager of a cricket team and the No. 4 slot was open to two batsman - one of whom can play all the shots in the book put has poor shot selection and judgement and another batsman who relies on a couple of shots but has great temperament - who would you pick ??

23-03-2007, 01:51 AM

mavric41

Unfortunately you would have to go with the guy with the shots. The other guy could be shut down to easy and be a detriment to the team.

But as a coach, I'd spend most my time with the guy with the good temperament to broaden his shot range. He is more likely to take it on board.

23-03-2007, 02:18 AM

adharcric

Quote:

Originally Posted by irfan

To put it succinctly, if you are a manager of a cricket team and the No. 4 slot was open to two batsman - one of whom can play all the shots in the book put has poor shot selection and judgement and another batsman who relies on a couple of shots but has great temperament - who would you pick ??

The one who scores more runs.

23-03-2007, 02:22 AM

Prince EWS

Technique >>>>>>>>>> Talent, any day of the week.

That being in my purely idealistic world of robot cricket of course. Given today's bowling standards and pitches, and the requirements of ODIs, the quicker scorer would be prefered in most situations, depending on the balance of the rest of the batting lineup of course.

Totally different situation in tests though.

23-03-2007, 02:28 AM

irfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by adharcric

The one who scores more runs.

The more talented batsman scores his runs in spurts, but when he scores he scores big. Big scores are few and far between

The technique oriented batsman contributes solidly most of the time with occasional dips in form.

23-03-2007, 02:34 AM

adharcric

Quote:

Originally Posted by irfan

The more talented batsman scores his runs in spurts, but when he scores he scores big. Big scores are few and far between

The technique oriented batsman contributes solidly most of the time with occasional dips in form.

Consistency for me.

23-03-2007, 02:42 AM

honestbharani

depends on HOW MUCH the talent is.

If it is say, Laraesque, take him anyday. But if it is more at the level of a Jayawardene or a Gibbs, then I will take the technique guy.

23-03-2007, 03:33 AM

Matt79

There's not really enough information in the question to give a definitive answer, but in general, in ODIs, an really talented player with an average technique will probably do better than a player with a really good technique, but not much talent.

More broadly, a certain level of talent is an absolute prerequisite to play cricket at a serious level - without that level of talent you could a god-like technique and not make it. However, once that basic level of talent is achieved, then technique is what will separate the average player from the good...

23-03-2007, 04:05 AM

shankar

You need a combination of both types. Which type you need more of, varies based on the pitches and the bowling attacks to be faced.

23-03-2007, 04:11 AM

adharcric

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt79

There's not really enough information in the question to give a definitive answer, but in general, in ODIs, an really talented player with an average technique will probably do better than a player with a really good technique, but not much talent.

More broadly, a certain level of talent is an absolute prerequisite to play cricket at a serious level - without that level of talent you could a god-like technique and not make it. However, once that basic level of talent is achieved, then technique is what will separate the average player from the good...

Ditto.

23-03-2007, 05:51 AM

Richard

I hate the way technique and talent are portrayed as separate things by some people.

23-03-2007, 05:58 AM

Matt79

true, it takes talent to develop a good technique. But you can see where the question is coming from...

23-03-2007, 06:00 AM

Richard

What he means is concentration (shot-selection). That and technique are the only talents that really matter in batting. Plus, obviously, a good eye, but if you're a batsman of any repute that means your eye's damn good.

And TBH, the truth is you can have a woeful technique and if your shot-selection's good you can still be a hell of a player. Look at Graham Gooch.

23-03-2007, 06:06 AM

Prince EWS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

What he means is concentration (shot-selection). That and technique are the only talents that really matter in batting. Plus, obviously, a good eye, but if you're a batsman of any repute that means your eye's damn good.

And TBH, the truth is you can have a woeful technique and if your shot-selection's good you can still be a hell of a player. Look at Graham Gooch.

I don't think he means that, actually.

I think he's comparing someone's stroke range to the risk level of the strokes they do play.

For example, someone who could only play three shots, but played them perfectly, in comparison to someone who could play every shot in the book, but did so with significantly increased risk.

23-03-2007, 06:16 AM

irfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't think he means that, actually.

I think he's comparing someone's stroke range to the risk level of the strokes they do play.

For example, someone who could only play three shots, but played them perfectly, in comparison to someone who could play every shot in the book, but did so with significantly increased risk.